Never mind

This in from Sen. Harkin's office:




***POSTPONED****

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO HOLD BUSINESS MEETING ON 2007 FARM BILL

Given the Senate schedule prior to the recess week, the farm bill mark up previously announced for tomorrow, Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 5pm EDT has been postponed.

Organic fraud prevention

This is a story The Packer will develop, but I thought you would be interested to see the press release about a new pilot program for organic fraud prevention at retail. The release:



CO-OP GROCERS PARTNER TO
PILOT ORGANIC FRAUD PROTECTION PROGRAM
National Cooperative Grocers Association, Hanover Co-op Food Stores, PCC Natural Markets and Unified Grocers Hire International Organic Accreditation Service to Launch Trial Initiative to Detect and Prevent Fraudulent Organic Suppliers
Plan to Introduce Recommended Program for All Organic Retailers as early as 2008
IOWA CITY, Iowa (October 3, 2007) The National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA) today announced it is partnering with Hanover Co-op Food Stores, PCC Natural Markets and Unified Grocers on a pilot program exploring the implementation of the organic industry's first system-wide, retailer-based organic fraud detection and prevention program.
NCGA is a business services cooperative for 110 consumer-owned food co-ops located throughout the U.S. As part of this initiative, NCGA has contracted with the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS) to determine appropriate methods retailers could undertake to limit the incidence of fraudulently traded organic products and to increase the chances of early detection when it takes place within the retail supply chain.
IOAS is a nonprofit organization, based in the U.S. with offices worldwide, which undertakes accreditation of organic certification bodies throughout the world. It is a recognized expert in the field of conformity assessment in the organic sector.
Also participating and organizing in the pilot study are NCGA members PCC Natural Markets, a Seattle-based chain of eight natural food co-ops, and Hanover Co-op Food Stores, which operates two co-ops in Hanover, NH. Unified Grocers is a multiple retail-owned grocery cooperative providing food and services to independent grocers in the Western U.S.
IOAS will conduct testing measures with NCGA grocers and suppliers over the coming months. Based on the pilot's findings, NCGA and IOAS plan to develop a recommended retailer-based fraud prevention program, offering it to not only NCGA's members but all organic retailers nationwide and throughout the world as early as mid-2008.
"The organic market has grown, and so has the temptation for organic fraud," said Robynn Shrader, chief executive officer for the NCGA. "This may be the result of legitimate suppliers struggling to satisfy the needs of their customers or of other parties becoming aware of the opportunity for fraudulent financial gain. Our program will not change how organic products are certified. Rather, we're seeking to add a very critical safety checkpoint in the supply chain that will empower retailers and provide peace of mind for organic customers."
"Safety measures our pilot program will explore can include elements such as unannounced visits to suppliers and residue testing on sample organic products," said Ken Commins, executive director of IOAS' U.S. offices. "The idea is that such a program would be strong and effective without creating bureaucracy or incurring significant costs."
To achieve these goals, the pilot study will aim to:
• Identify the most suitable auditing criteria to detect fraud
• Identify the party or parties most suitable to implement these measures
• Establish the nature of a system to oversee and ensure implementation at all levels
• Establish the costs of implementation and determine which parties incur the costs
• Determine how the program might allow for all retailers to participate
• Identify any additional needs to ensure optimum fraud protection within the retail sector
"Food co-ops have been leaders in the organic industry for decades; through education as well as providing shoppers with great-tasting organic food," said Shrader. "We value our consumer-owner's trust and will voluntarily put added measures in place to be sure we are providing the goods they believe they are buying."
About IOAS
The International Organic Accreditation Service (www.ioas.org) is a nonprofit company registered in Delaware, which undertakes accreditation of organic certification bodies throughout the world. It is a recognized expert in the field of conformity assessment in the organic sector.
About NCGA
The National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), founded in 1999, is a business services cooperative for consumer-owned food co-ops located throughout the United States. NCGA is owned by 110 food co-ops operating more than 130 stores in 32 states with combined annual sales of over $920 million. NCGA helps unify natural food co-ops in order to optimize operational and marketing resources, strengthen purchasing power, and ultimately offer more value to natural food co-op shoppers everywhere. For a map of co-op member locations, visit www.ncga.coop/member-stores. To learn more about NCGA, visit www.ncga.coop.

Harkin schedules business meeting

Perhaps Sen. Harkin is farther along in the farm bill markup process than most give him credit for. Still, one wonders if the committee will make any real progress either Thursday or Friday. Here is a release from his office:

SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO HOLD BUSINESS MEETING ON 2007 FARM BILL

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today announced the scheduling of an open business meeting of the Committee to consider and report out the 2007 farm bill. The meeting will take place Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 5 o’clock in the afternoon or one hour after completion of the Senate Finance Committee meeting scheduled for the same day.

The Senate Agriculture Committee meeting will take place in room 328 A of the Russell Senate Office Building

Cardoza on six-legged terrorists

Rep. Cardoza may just have the political will to pull this off, but the powers that be are not in his favor. It will be interesting to watch the Nov. 1 joint hearing between the Agriculture Committee and the Homeland Security Committee: From the office of Rep. Dennis Cardoza:

WASHINGTON, DC— Today Chairman Cardoza of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture held a hearing to review the joint performance of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the Department of Agriculture and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security in protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and disease. Investigative reports presented during the hearing showed that the consolidation of border inspection powers under the Department of Homeland Security resulted in a breakdown in stopping foreign pests and prohibited agricultural products from entering the country.

“Stopping foreign pests and prohibited agricultural products from entering the US might not be as sexy as stopping terrorists, weapons, or drugs but it is certainly just as important,” said Chairman Cardoza during the hearing. “These are six and eight-legged terrorists that can wreak havoc on our nation’s agricultural industry, costing billions of taxpayer dollars in eradication efforts and decimate our ability to access new export markets.”

Until March 1, 2003, the agricultural quarantine inspection (AQI) program was under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s APHIS. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred that responsibility, and 1800 agricultural inspectors, from APHIS to the Department of Homeland Security’s CPB. The Agriculture Committee’s investigator, the Government Accountability Office, and the Homeland Security Department’s Office of the Inspector General all testified on separate reports they conducted which show the AQI program has been poorly administered and under-prioritized by CBP. The testimony included startling anecdotal evidence and statistics about the state of AQI since the transfer, including a 27% increase in new pest and disease incursions in Florida and nearly half of the agricultural inspectors leaving CPB. The consensus of these reports is that CBP is not preventing foreign pests and disease incursions and has fostered a poor working environment for agricultural inspectors.

CPB has traditionally been responsible for regulating international trade, collecting import duties, and preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S. CBP does not have experience or expertise at pest and disease exclusion. Some experts and investigators testifying at today’s hearing believe that the APHIS program, with responsibilities for AQI, should be transferred back to USDA.

Chairman Cardoza summed up the hearing, “The testimony here today has shown that this transfer has been a colossal mistake and a colossal waste of taxpayer money. I hope that we can correct this mistake promptly.”

On November 1, 2007 the House Agriculture and Homeland Security Committees are scheduled to have a joint hearing on the AQI program and explore solutions to improve pest exclusion at our borders.

DeLauro vision for food safety

Here is the latest release from Rep. Rosa DeLauro. It fleshes out her vision for the future of food safety and what she believes are need changes in food safety regulation. A biggie is access to foreign facilities.....

From the release:

“Too often, it seems as if this administration is more focused on trade relations than consumer safety, more on public relations than public health. Even in the face of recent industry interest in seeking more of a formal regulatory scheme and inspections, the FDA would not -- or did not have the institutional clout to make it happen. Increased trade should never require us to compromise our standards of health and safety.

“With so much immediate pressure on the system, we need to make some immediate changes that can make a very big difference. Let me lay out some of these short and medium-term changes that can have a real impact on our food safety before we can act on more fundamental reforms.

“The United States should empower the FDA, with the authority to:
· One, authorize the FDA to inspect overseas plants and make access to foreign plants a condition of entry to the U.S. This is a big change, but during the pet food recall, we saw why: the FDA was unable to gain access to the plants in China to conduct an adequate investigation and it became clear that freer inspections abroad must be part of the equation.

· Two, impose fines on those who have imported unsafe or adulterated foods. This represents a new approach, when itcomes to pushing back at offenders.

· And three, require importers to better document the source of imported foods and food ingredients.

“At the same time, with our global food supply in mind we need to start moving toward a more fundamental transformation of the way the FDA oversees food imports. That means a concerted effort to both:

· Work with major trading partners to forge equivalence agreements, establishing certification programs as the basis for ensuring that imported products will meet U.S. standards in advance; and

· Collaborate with the private sector to encourage greater reliance on private certification systems to verify that effective preventive measures have been observed in producing goods intended for import.

“I think there is real momentum in this nation for reform -- addressing not only a rising flood of imports, but also the serious need to reexamine our entire food safety system here at home. I know we can do so in a way that benefits both the consumer and the industry.

“To be sure, that process must include addressing the challenges that face the USDA today. I will continue working to push FSIS to slow down its implementation of Risked Based Inspection until the agency can obtain the comprehensive scientific data it needs. Today the USDA currently lacks this data and moving forward would be misguided and potentially dangerous.

“That is why I am also opposed to the ill-advised FSIS decision to grant China equivalency status so that it may export processed poultry back into the United States as long as the raw meat was originally slaughtered here in the US or Canada.

“Ultimately, this administration has a responsibility to ensure ANY reform we make to our food safety system actually improve resource allocation and safety.

“That is why I am here to speak to you today, not about the immediate measures, but about a new path toward fundamental reform -- about the best approach to restructuring the FDA in order to better position that agency to respond to emerging threats to our food supply.

“With a real concerted effort -- a bold, energized campaign -- we can pursue serious, sweeping change. We can move openly and urgently toward a unified, effective food safety system which focuses on prevention not just reaction, makes the most effective use of limited resources, and addresses both domestic and imported food safety. These are the basic and guiding principles -- but for too long they have been compromised by outdated oversight laws that are putting lives at risk."

Chairman's mark

The Senate Finance Committee will meet tomorrow afternoon and proceed with offsets to help fund beyond baseline priorities for the farm bill. Here is the chairman's mark, which describes tax breaks and revenue measures that will contribute to the $9 billion or so expected to be available.

Here is an excerpt about the Permanent Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund:


The proposal amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to create a permanent Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund (“PADTF”) that would provide payments to farmers and ranchers who suffer losses in areas that are declared disaster areas by the USDA. The trust fund will be funded by an amount equal to four percent of the amounts received in the general fund of the Treasury that are attributable to the duties collected on articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The PADTF could make payments under four new disaster assistance programs: the permanent crop disaster assistance program, the permanent livestock indemnity program, the tree assistance program, and the emergency assistance program for livestock, honey bees, and farm raised fish. In addition, the PADTF will also fund a new pest and disease management and disaster prevention program.Amounts not required to meet current withdrawals may be invested in U.S. Treasury obligations with interest credited to the PADTF. The PADTF may also borrow, with interest, as repayable advances sums necessary to carry out the purposes of the fund.

Bringing it strong

Should pest exclusion duties go back to the USDA? That was the focus of the House ag subcommittee hearing today. The first panel broke up about 15 minutes ago and the second panel is expected to testify in about 30 minutes after a few votes.

I've uploaded the prepared statements from two panels testifying before the House Ag Committee's subcommittee on horticulture and organic agriculture to our Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group. Find Joel Nelsen's testimony here, John McClung here and Charles Bronson here. Also find DHS panelist here, House Ag Committee investigator John Jurich here and GAO official Shames here.

The sentiment of Jurich is that things have gone badly for pest exclusion since DHS has assumed duties, notwithstanding some recent changes. Meanwhile, hort committee chairman Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., stressed the difficulties that the DHS has faced in his questioning of the panelists. But can it be changed? Certainly the odds are against it.

Here is an excerpt from Joel Nelsen's testimony:

We have a passion for the program, we understand it and no other agricultural entity has a greater working knowledge of this program. This passion was first presented to DHS in 2003 when a small group of CEO’s from agricultural organizations across the country met with Commissioner Bonner and senior assistant Jay Ahern. At that meeting we were assured of the following: that the program would be better than ever; that one face at the border would work; that there are more inspectors working to protect agriculture with the merger of Customs & Border Protection; that CBP is sensitive to our concerns and remains open to stakeholder communications; that training and education will be cornerstones of the program; and that we have an excellent working relationship with USDA. These statements were elements of that discussion. Unfortunately, this situation did not materialize. Since then I have had no less than six meetings at DHS headquarters in which I was assured identified problems were being corrected. Identified problems ranged from the slowness of the training program, adequate utilization of AQI dollars, the reduction in interceptions, interagency battles, a major deterioration of the beagle brigade program, and high staff turnover, just to name a few.


Later.....

Well, we’re through with second chances, done with third chances, and tired of fourth chances. It’s not as if a path for improvement had never been identified. I read the reports, you read the reports but nobody of consequence acted as a result of the reports. And now the agencies and certain members of Congress ask us for one more chance with the status quo?


TK: Joel Nelsen brings it strong, and he makes a convincing case that border pest inspection duties should revert back to the USDA. Unfortunately, both neither DHS nor the USDA appear to want any part of such a transfer.

How safe and credible?

A reader submitted this indictment of the USDA in the comment box on the blog:

In light of the Topps recall the amount is equal to roughly 84,000,000 hamburgers. The USDA continues to spin its irresposibility by promoting that impression we should learn to live with these occasional outbreaks because the US has the safest meats in the world which is an out-right lie. Many European countries have much stricter standards and enforcement as well as a better safety record. This is why we must always call into question the "facts" and "figures" the that department tosses out to dodge responsibility. The USDA is not a model to follow in food safety or honest reporting.

Social responsibility and ignorant consumers

PMA's research on social responsibility and consumerism are intriguing. Do the findings point to the failure of the produce marketing concept that has been in place until now? Is the customer king, or should produce marketers try to deliver what enlightened wisdom dictates is best for consumers? Do consumers overstate the importance of social responsibility in surveys compared to their actual behavior?
Here is a report from Tom Burfield, Western Correspondent for The Packer:
Consumers believe the degree of social responsibility a produce company exhibits is a highly important factor when they're making their purchase decisions, according to new research from the Produce Marketing Association.In a survey of 1,000 consumers this summer, 55% percent placed the highest degree of importance on the social responsibility – or sustainability – of their produce suppliers.Survey participants placed organics (13%), distance from farm to store (11%) and fair living wages (11%) at the top of the list of social responsibility issues.

Recycled and recyclable packaging received high ratings from 8% and 7%, respectively. PMA said that, when combined at 15%, packaging issues are the most highly rated sustainability issue for consumers.
A workshop will focus on social responsibility at PMA's Fresh Summit International Convention and Exposition in Houston Oct. 12-15.
Findings of the research:
Consumers believe the degree of social responsibility a produce company exhibits is a highly important factor when they're making their purchase decisions, according to new research from the Produce Marketing Association.In a survey of 1,000 consumers this summer, 55% percent placed the highest degree of importance on the social responsibility – or sustainability – of their produce suppliers.Survey participants placed organics (13%), distance from farm to store (11%) and fair living wages (11%) at the top of the list of social responsibility issues.

Recycled and recyclable packaging received high ratings from 8% and 7%, respectively. PMA said that, when combined at 15%, packaging issues are the most highly rated sustainability issue for consumers.

"The survey's insight on social responsibility offers more evidence that it is time to get back to the basics by restoring our personal relationships with consumers and focusing on providing great-tasting fruits and vegetables," Bryan Silbermann, PMA president, said in a news release."We should not only strive to build a better supply chain, but also build a better value chain for our customers," he said. A workshop will focus on social responsibility at PMA's Fresh Summit International Convention and Exposition in Houston Oct. 12-15.

TK: Here is a link about research from the UK - the first and strongest bastion of social responsibility in marketing - that shows consumers care more about price and convenience.

From The Scotsman.com:
ETHICAL shopping is the most important trend on the high street, with everyone from retailers to manufacturers making increasingly bold claims about their environmental or social credentials.
But British consumers still put the cost and convenience of food ahead of their concerns about the planet, according to a survey.
Research by BBC Countryfile magazine reveals that the top priority for a third of food shoppers is price. What is more, half of us believe that locally produced food is more expensive than other produce, and 41 per cent say that this perceived expense is likely to prevent them from buying locally produced goods.

Here is a very revealing paper on the study of the consumer movement in the U.S and the implications of the social responsiblity movement. Robert D. Winsor, Loyola Marymount University, writes about "SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, CONSUMERISM, AND THE MARKETING CONCEPT" One of the key tenants is that "social responsiblity" can become just another way to manipulate consumers.

From the paper:
Yet, it is noteworthy that the ultimate result of an expanded social responsibility of business is the concomitant diminishment of free consumer choice. Moreover, this obstruction of consumer discretion is the inevitable consequence of presumptions of consumer irrationality.

Later....

It should be noted that the societal marketing concept is founded upon one dominant and critical proposition. This is the assumption that "consumers' wants do not always coincide with their long-run interests or society's long-run interests," and that, given this, marketers should place the "emphasis on 'long-run consumer and societal well being" (Kotler, 1977b). As a result, the societal marketing concept represents an endorsement and justification for the social responsibility of business in contemporary society, and a refutation of Milton Friedman's infamous assertion that "the social responsibility of business is to make a profit" (Friedman, 1962).

Later....

Because organizations are rapidly becoming aware of the power of "green consumers," for example, there is a significant temptation to advance this agenda through the marketing program as a powerful device for cultivating customer loyalty and anesthetizing consumer prudence and vigilance.

TK: If the produce selling proposition at retail switches dramatically from providing the best tasting produce at the most competitive price to the most "socially responsible" produce, consumers may feel more manipulated and unsatisfied than ever. Suppliers may feel manipulated too. I remember one question posed to a panel of retailers at the AsiaFruit Congress about Fair Trade bananas; why don''t retailers have "fair trade" for produce grown in England or the U.S.? Where does social responsibility come in when buyers are beating down the price? I will be interested to hear more at the PMA....

Sounding upbeat

Here is the the audio link of Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, at this weekly teleconference with reporters yesterday. As you can hear, he says the committee is "beginning to rally around a basic framework" for a sound investment in American agriculture.

The first question is asked about the new investments from the Finance Committee tax package; how much money is out there and where will the offsets come from? About $9 billion, Harkin said, and answering the second part of the question about the source of the offsets; "That's their end of the deal; where it goes is my end of the deal."

Talking later in the day with a farm lobbyist, I get the idea that a markup is highly unlikely Thursday or Friday, though Harkin holds out hope in this briefing that he can pull it off. The Senate's behind the scenes work on the farm bill doesn't come close to matching the transparency in the House process, though in the end the House bill also had its share of 11th hour and closed door sessions before the final product emerged.

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking

Advance notice of proposed rule making. A little tentative, wouldn't you say? If you think it is all right, we are going to think about publishing a rule - probably - at some point in the future.
Sounds like pre-planning or other such bureaucratic doublespeak. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is apparently soon going to publish the "advance notice of proposed rule making" that will consider the role of food safety in marketing orders. I'm not sure if the ANPR (for short) will specifically look at leafy greens or if the notice will treat the subject more broadly.

What will be the result of the deliberation? Western Growers has indicated they would like to see a national marketing order approach for leafy greens, but as the ANPR suggests, getting the wheels of government turning could take years on this issue.